Senate report concludes: no proof of contact between

[Assur]

These are your views.

Indeed these are my views. I do not claim that I have complete knowledge/information on the events in the Middle East, but then who has? I am writing on the information availiabel to me.

The other positions in my posting were:

1. The US is losing the conflict in Iraq.

2. The US is losing the conflict in Afghanistan.

The present administration does not seem to have an effective strategy and the Dems don't have one either!

[kandrathe]

Indeed these are my views. I do not claim that I have complete knowledge/information on the events in the Middle East, but then who has? I am writing on the information availiabel to me.

The other positions in my posting were:

1. The US is losing the conflict in Iraq.

2. The US is losing the conflict in Afghanistan.

The present administration does not seem to have an effective strategy and the Dems don't have one either!

How do we lose? This is a war of attitudes, punctuated by destabilizing violence. We can only lose by having a weak stomach, and by continuing to do stupid things (e.g. Abu Garib). A part of me says, "Ok, fine." We'll pull out in a controlled manner and let the jihadi's run amok through the Middle East, Asia and Europe. Have a good time with the bombings in Berlin and Frankfurt, or continue to walk on egg shells such as canceling Idomeneo. We'll lob a cruise missile over once in awhile in a token show of force. Oh, yeah. That was the Clinton strategy and it didn't work either.

[Thecla]

Partially, because I blame Washington, not just Bush.

Yes I blame Washington too. The Senate was so completeley spineless that they would not (with a few notable exceptions) stand up against the Bush administration's push for war; not that the US "liberal" media, or --- most importantly --- the majority of the US electorate did either.

That said, the war is 100% Bush responsibility. The fact that any and all checks on his insane adminstration failed does not alter his culpability one bit.

And now for something completely different...

...the senate has passed the Detainee Interogation Bill, which includes among other things (as summarized by Patrick Leahy)

It would permit the president to detain indefinitely—even for life—any alien, whether in the United States or abroad, whether a foreign resident or a lawful permanent resident, without any meaningful opportunity for the alien to challenge his detention. The administration would not even need to assert, much less prove, that the alien was an enemy combatant; it would suffice that the alien was "awaiting [a] determination" on that issue. In other words, the bill would tell the millions of legal immigrants living in America, participating in American families, working for American businesses, and paying American taxes, that our government may at any minute pick them up and detain them indefinitely without charge, and without any access to the courts or even to military tribunals, unless and until the government determines that they are not enemy combatants.

I am disgusted beyond words by the state of the US right now.

[kandrathe]

Yes I blame Washington too. The Senate was so completeley spineless that they would not (with a few notable exceptions) stand up against the Bush administration's push for war; not that the US "liberal" media, or --- most importantly --- the majority of the US electorate did either.

That said, the war is 100% Bush responsibility. The fact that any and all checks on his insane adminstration failed does not alter his culpability one bit.

Do you believe the US is a dictatorship? I believe everyone is culpable for thier votes. It's hard to Bush bash, when the majority is voting with him... ...even on the following news item.

And now for something completely different...

...the senate has passed the Detainee Interogation Bill, which includes among other things (as summarized by Patrick Leahy)
I am disgusted beyond words by the state of the US right now.

How was it before the bill?

[Thecla]

I believe everyone is culpable for thier votes. It's hard to Bush bash, when the majority is voting with him...

That the US voters are entirely culpable for their votes is exactly what I said --- but that in no way excuses Bush for the policies his administration has created and implemented, it simply enabled him to carry them out.

How was it before the bill?

Well, before the bill (S. 3930), I would have assumed that any permanent resident of the US had the right of habeas corpus. At least, that's what the US Citizenship and Immigration Services appears to suggest, when they include among the rights of US permanent residents:

To be protected by all of the laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions.*

Of course, I'm making here --- the possibly unjustified --- assumption that US citizens still have the right of habeas corpus.

After the bill, assuming it's found to be constitutional, whose relevant part in Sec. 6. on habeas corpus matters on p. 82 says:

‘‘(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3)
15 of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
16 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have
17 jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against
18 the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of
19 the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of
20 confinement of an alien detained by the United States
21 who—
22 ‘‘(A ) is currently in United States custody; and
23 ‘‘(B ) has been determined by the United States
24 to have been properly detained as an enemy combat
25 ant or is awaiting such determination.’’.

it would appear that any alien, permanent resident or otherwise, has no such right. (I didn't bother to look up the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to see what exceptions it provides.)
___________________________________________

*Please note, however, that you may be detained by the United States Government for an undetermined period of time (for example, the rest of your life) in an undetermined place, with no legal means to contest the reasons for your detention or the conditions of your confinement. Please do not be alarmed by this note, since the United States Government never makes any mistakes in these matters. Welcome to the United States!

[eppie]

A friend of mine just sent me an article via email about the connection of Prescott Bush and George Bush Senior with german Nazi war criminals. They were apparantly one of the main forces behind getting nazi's to the US to work for things like the CIA and in research.
This is the first time I heard something like this (although it doesn't surprise me a single bit as you might guess).
Does anybody know more about this?

[Ashock]

A friend of mine just sent me an article via email about the connection of Prescott Bush and George Bush Senior with german Nazi war criminals. They were apparantly one of the main forces behind getting nazi's to the US to work for things like the CIA and in research.
This is the first time I heard something like this (although it doesn't surprise me a single bit as you might guess).
Does anybody know more about this?

Both sides, that is the Russians and the US welcomed former Nazi scientists simply because the germans were ahead in rocket (and other) technologies. We were on the brink of the Cold War, and both sides knew it. So, they grabbed the germans, simple as that. If you want a *real* connection between the US and the Nazis, take a look at the Kennedy clan's history.

-A

[Occhidiangela]

A friend of mine just sent me an article via email about the connection of Prescott Bush and George Bush Senior with german Nazi war criminals. They were apparantly one of the main forces behind getting nazi's to the US to work for things like the CIA and in research.
This is the first time I heard something like this (although it doesn't surprise me a single bit as you might guess).
Does anybody know more about this?

Define war criminal.

Werner Von Braun worked on V2's. He then worked on the US space program.

Albert Speer was a minister in charge of industrial coordination, he got to sit in Spandau prison until he died.

"The rockets go up,
Who cares vere dey come down,
Dat's no my department"
Says Werner von Braun."

-- Tom Lehrer --

PS: the CIA didn't exist until after WW II. It grew out of the OSS, a branch of the Army working spy and espionage stuff, as well as support to resistance movements during the war. The founder was Colonel William 'Wild Bill' Donovan.

Since the US went from war with The Third Reich to 'cold' war with the Russian Empire/Soviet Union in short order, a practical decision had to be made: do you want to win, and hire on some sharp folks with shady pasts, or do you want to lose? At the time, the ends justifies the means wasn't an irrational approach to take. It looks different now. It is important to recall that German Nazi's and Americans typically agreed in general sense that the USSR as a threat, and that communists in general were a common political enemy. If you check US rhetoric in the late 1930's, the red baiting was considerable. Of course, so was support for communists among artists and trade unionists. The doomed support of the Republican cause in Spain was a blow to American liberals.

I don't think Prescott Bush was an American liberal.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

It would permit the president to detain indefinitely—even for life—any alien, whether in the United States or abroad, whether a foreign resident or a lawful permanent resident, without any meaningful opportunity for the alien to challenge his detention. The administration would not even need to assert, much less prove, that the alien was an enemy combatant; it would suffice that the alien was "awaiting [a] determination" on that issue. In other words, the bill would tell the millions of legal immigrants living in America, participating in American families, working for American businesses, and paying American taxes, that our government may at any minute pick them up and detain them indefinitely without charge, and without any access to the courts or even to military tribunals, unless and until the government determines that they are not enemy combatants.

Works for me. THese people don't exist in a vacuum. These resident aliens tend to have friends and families who can bring a considerable pressure/publicity to such "abductions" and expose them as missing.

No matter the language of the law, there is a way to fight this, and it isn't a free lunch.

Face it, Thecla, there are still spies and agnents in America, working for other powers than America, just as there were Russian spies here during the Cold War. I see no reason to give such agents, if they are actually linked to terrorist organizations whose aims are no secret, any special loophole to hide behind.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Define war criminal.

However one choses to define it, it either should not apply to those who do weapons research or it should. Thus, Von Braun was not a war criminal or all the Los Alamos folk were. One cannot have it both ways; one set of rules for us and a different set for them.

Whenever I think of 'rules of war' (e.g., the Geneva Convention) my mind gets addled. Ultimately, there can only be one rule; win. The winners get to determine what was right, what was wrong, who should be punished and how.

As for 'war criminals', seldom are the actions directly pertaining to the war effort found to be criminal. Usually it is the behavior of garrison troops in a conquered region or the treatment of POWs or the excesses of self styled militias that are held to be war crimes. But these actions are, at best, tangential to an actual war effort.

For the countries that planned, sanctioned, and executed the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo (among many others) to treat the attacks on London whether by bombers or V weapons as 'war crimes' would have been the height of hypocrisy.

--Pete

[roguebanshee]

Face it, Thecla, there are still spies and agnents in America, working for other powers than America, just as there were Russian spies here during the Cold War. I see no reason to give such agents, if they are actually linked to terrorist organizations whose aims are no secret, any special loophole to hide behind.

Occhi

And of course since they're accused of being terrorists the Geneva Convention should not be applicable. That little detail is also part of the MCA.

[SwissMercenary]

I see no reason to give such agents, if they are actually linked to terrorist organizations whose aims are no secret, any special loophole to hide behind.

Occhi

I can't say that I see 'Having to be charged with a crime within 9 (Or was it 12?) months of being detained' to be a very useful special loophole, there.

The bolded part in what you quoted places the burden of proof of innocence on the accused, rather than the accuser. You talked a lot about men being judged by their peers in the discussions revolving around the ICC, but oddly enough, your solution to the same caliber of issue at home, is 'Well, the guy's family should do a letter-writing campaign to free him.'

I wonder, does the bill specify where persons in question can be held, while detained? Syrian torture chambers, perhaps?

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,

For the countries that planned, sanctioned, and executed the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo (among many others) to treat the attacks on London whether by bombers or V weapons as 'war crimes' would have been the hight of hypocrisy.

--Pete

My conclusion on the Nuremburg trials, about which I read quite a bit once I thought I was off to Gitmo to serve on comissions back in 2003/04, was that is was a kangaroo court based on just what you mention. This chasing down of people 50 years later in Cleveland pisses me off.

Where I actually went was a cleaner mission, for all its complexities and internal contradictions. I talked to a Marine major this spring who spent about a hear in country slightly after I left the theater.

One of his observations was a bitter jest along the liones of "destroying Fallujah to save it; but this time, there was a pretty big audience, none of whom were cheering." He had a few more things to say that are not printable, but he made one remark that caught me off guard. His personal decision to never again eat at

Pizza Hut
Subway
Burger King
Baskin Robbins.

At some of the larger bases in Iraq and elsewhere in the Mid East, these "touches of home" are standard fixtures, aimed at QOL of the troops.

It was his opinion that those four companies made money on the backs of dead Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, Marines and contractors in convoys all over Iraq that got hit by ambushes and IED's. We spent a long time talking about MSR's and the logistics of supporting the troops in the middle of Iraq.

"War crimes?" Smedley Butler wept. I am not sure if some of what has been going on over there constitutes a war crime, but what happens to the money is in some cases criminal, in others simply wasteful.

DR

[Occhidiangela]

And of course since they're accused of being terrorists the Geneva Convention should not be applicable. That little detail is also part of the MCA.

What does that have to do with the price of piss in Peking? As soon as a terrorist organization signs the protocols, I'll consider worrying about that.

This is not your grandfather's war.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I can't say that I see 'Having to be charged with a crime within 9 (Or was it 12?) months of being detained' to be a very useful special loophole, there.

The bolded part in what you quoted places the burden of proof of innocence on the accused, rather than the accuser. You talked a lot about men being judged by their peers in the discussions revolving around the ICC, but oddly enough, your solution to the same caliber of issue at home, is 'Well, the guy's family should do a letter-writing campaign to free him.'

I wonder, does the bill specify where persons in question can be held, while detained? Syrian torture chambers, perhaps?

I am amused at your presumption that the Feds will be going out of their way to pick up random and innocent persons. Manpower and money is finite.

I will let you in on a thought: no matter how screwed up the law or provision, the people out in the field tend to take what they are doing seriously. While you are not able to avoid corruption and screw ups among federal agents or cops 100%, the guys on the ground don't like wasting their time chasing after and picking up people who aren't bad guys. OK, even regular cops sometimes pick up the wrong guy. Is it the exception or the rule?

Oh, wait, I am sorry, I forgot that "the government" is this monolithic entity that has only harassment of the innocent in its minds. The response to this measure, in terms of how the government persons in the field are portrayed, smells of the stereotyping of Navy Pilots got smeared with during the Tailhook Affair, even thos eof us (which was most of us) who weren't there. Thanks so much, all of you, for tar with the brush of the exception mind set" that is offered to the counter terrorism guys. I am sure they appreciate your support.

Bah.

As to who is eligible for this new provision: if citizenship incurs no advanatage to the citizan, what is its point, and what is the incentive for becoming one?

Occhi

[SwissMercenary]

I am amused at your presumption that the Feds will be going out of their way to pick up random and innocent persons. Manpower and money is finite.

Same as how the ICC is unlikely going to be heading to your place tomorrow to pick you up, if the US signed on to it. Hello, Pot, meet Sir Kettle.

As to who is eligible for this new provision: if citizenship incurs no advanatage to the citizan, what is its point, and what is the incentive for becoming one?

Occhi

Poor point. It can be used to justify doing just about anything to immigrants. Their fault that they aren't citisens, am I right?

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . if they are actually linked to terrorist organizations . . .

But therein lies the rub. There is no provision in the bill to ensure that any such link exists or even that there be a reasonable probability of such a link.

. . . any special loophole to hide behind.

You mean like:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9)

Or like:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; . . ." (Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, Fifth Amendment)

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." (Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, Sixth Amendment)

I don't know, but I think that the fundamental law of the land is a little bit more than a "special loophole". An argument might be made that immigrants (like me) are at best second hand citizens and anyone who didn't come over on the Mayflower or possibly was here to meet the Mayflower shouldn't be treated with the dignity and respect that the WASPs expect. But if such an argument is made, then I spit on it and on the person putting it forward. If we Americans, both long established and first generation, piss on our principles from anger, from fear, or from xenophobia, then we deserve neither "general Welfare" nor "the Blessings of Liberty" for these do not come free.

I, for one, do not think a moron like Shrub nor his scumbag cronies in the Texas Oil Gang have the moral integrity to be entrusted with such powers. But if they were as upright and honest and capable as legend has Washington and Lincoln to be, they still should not be given powers so at odds with our national ideals. Even good people are in danger of becoming despotic if given despotic powers. And that way leads to oppression or to the exercise of the power of the people implied in the second amendment. Neither is an outcome to be desired.

--Pete

[roguebanshee]

What does that have to do with the price of piss in Peking? As soon as a terrorist organization signs the protocols, I'll consider worrying about that.

This is not your grandfather's war.

Occhi

And all you need is an accusation of terrorist activity to condone torture of any kind?

The MCA allows the use of various forms of torture to extract confessions usable in court. Confessions that can be used to sentence someone to death. And you don't even need proof of any links to known or suspected terrorist cells, you just need an accusation.

Is there any reason to sink below the level of those you claim to fight?

[SwissMercenary]

The MCA allows the use of various forms of torture to extract confessions usable in court.

Come now, roguebanshee, we all know that people under torture only tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[Thecla]

I see no reason to give such agents, if they are actually linked to terrorist organizations whose aims are no secret, any special loophole to hide behind.

What is happening now, and has been happening, is wrong, wrong, wrong. Your apparent characterization of the complete removal of any right of habeas corpus (for someone who may in fact have done nothing at all) with the closing of a legal loophole only illustrates how deeply wrong things have gone.

I don't expect to persuade you of the lack of morality and legality of this, not to mention Guantanomo Bay, secret CIA prisons, renditions, torture... (and I do not intend to here to start a fruitless discussion about torture, since I know you disagree with the description, but I will call it what I believe it is).

So I will only say that not only are many of the policies of the Bush adminisration immoral (albeit strongly supported by a pretty fair fraction of the US population, who seem to be quite happy to torture any suspected Islamic terrorist, guilty or not), they are also counterproductive.

For every prisoner held without any recourse in Guantanomo all these years (as one camp commander was quoted as saying "we have more goatherders than terrorists here"), how many new potential terrorists have been radicalized by the way they have been treated?

The Bush administration's policies are in complete contradiction with their stated goals of winning hearts and minds --- in part because they seem to feel that it is just a PR problem, not a policy problem.

One effect that all this has had (as far as I can tell anyway -- I do not claim any first-hand knowledge) is that it has destroyed the credibility and possible influence of moderate, pro-western groups in the Islamic world. As I heard some say on the radio recently, the leaders are now divided between autocrats and theocrats. Maybe those moderates would have had a tough road to hoe in any event, but the US has simply been driving nail after nail into their coffin.